[geocentrism] Re: Alan Griffin's "Proof of Rotation"
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 18:27:20 +1000
Could someone therefore save me the trouble of looking back through the
boards and simply tell me what Alan's idea was?
No need Neville. His idea was to disrupt. He left as soon as he knew he was
beaten on several fronts. Here is a copy of the main content from his posts
which I saved. I wanted to send it before he left, but he beat me to it.
Alans problems....
My brother's observations that the radial velocities of all stars
vary by twice the speed of the earth during the year is ample proof that
the earth moves. There is no way that this can be explained in any other
way (except for the ludicrous theory which has no scientific backing that
the stars go round the sun every 24 hours, and that the sun goes round the
earth!)
You are still unable to refute my brother's proof!
There's nothing to "understand". I am a physicist, and understand
forces and motion.
You're obviously not a scientist! The whole point about
electromagnetic waves is they do NOT need a medium. This is what the
Michelson Morley experiment showed!
You don't understand simple physics. You're obviously not a scientist! It is
easy to determine if
one is stationary with respect to another body, such as the sun. My
brother is doing this every night. You're obviously not a scientist!
I've snipped most of this to save wasting bandwidth. I have never
read such a load of totally unscientific "twaddle". The aether cannot be
detected because it doesn't exist. Radio waves do not need a medium, and
they travel through empty space. You're obviously not a scientist!
It was you who introduced the term. I've no idea what it means.
I hope you're not a science teacher!
What utter rubbish! There is no scientific evidence for this. It is
wishful thinking.
So your star is constantly taking energy away from the "aether" and
slowing it down?
To a quote from a real scientist........
You're awfully good at quoting other people, but it's irrelevant
to my argument, which I thought I had made really simple for non-
scientists! You're obviously not a scientist!
So I've snipped the quotations!
The problem is that people who are not scientists try to "blind
non scientists with pseudo science"!
I saw my brother this evening. He says that the aberration of
> light proves that the earth moves.
Strange. We have not heard from Stephen Jones, refuting my one
example "with minimum effort"!
(why would he waste his time. Is your brother a scientist? but I really did
not ask him this lol)
If the stars were rotating round the earth (or sun), the angle of the
aberration of light would be different for all the stars, because they
MUST be moving at different speeds if they are at different distances (or
do you claim that all the stars are at the same distance from the earth?)
In fact the aberration of light is exactly the same for ALL stars,
which would indicate that the stars are stationary (comparatively) and
that the earth is moving.
In fact the aberration of light is exactly the same for ALL stars,
which would indicate that the stars are stationary (comparatively) and
that the earth is moving.
I have never been rude in my postings.
You're obviously not a scientist!
However, nobody has even addressed my brother's statement that in
the heliocentric theory the aberration of light for all stars is exactly
the same, but in the geocentric theory the aberration of light should be
different for all stars which are at different distances from the earth.
Since the aberration of light IS the same for all stars, do you
not agree that this seems to show that the earth is moving and that the
stars aren't?
You are not being at all logical. Our instruments can detect very
accurately whether a body is at rest relative any other body, but you
cannot be at rest absolutely.
Explain why there has to be a frame at rest in space please. You're
obviously not a scientist!
You THINK the effect can be produced by either movement?
But I have explained to you that aberration depends on speed, and
according to your geocentric theory, the speeds of the stars all differ,
so the aberration would be different for different stars. It isn't! So how
can you THINK that you can just ignore the facts?
The speed of light in a medium is equal to the speed of light in
vacuo divided by the refractive index. So in glass it is c/1.5, and in
water it is c/1.3.
But you can only be at rest relative to something else. You can
only have no movement relative to another object. You can't be motionless
with respect to nothing.You're obviously not a scientist!
The constancy of the speed of light , also, is a theoretical
> assumption. It's a pretty good assumption. There is no evidence that it
changes, and no theoretical reason why it should change.
Who produced this theory? It is completely wrong!
Let's assume that the aberration is much larger, say 20 degrees.
To see the star you would have point your telescope 20 degrees away from
the actual star,
So to date, nobody has been able to refute my proof that the earth
is moving!
How can you measure a null result????
I'm told that there are some idiots who claim that man has never
landed on the moon,
You're obviously not a scientist!
But when I say that to Geocentricists they get all huffy, and accuse me of
being arrogant and opinionated!
I have backed up every one of my
criticisms with scientific evidence, because I am a scientist.
Of course there are lines of force for gravity. because I am a scientist.
Well it is assumed that people understand this
If you have
huge pressures, it merely means that it will require a larger voltage to
get the same current, so you will be supplying the extra energy.
because I am a scientist.because I am a scientistbecause I scientist..i
(here the scientist proposes a new constant for Ohms law, and Faradays law
of electrolysis. Perhaps he stumbled on something. )
if you move through the light from the star at a constant velocity
it appears to be coming down towards you at an angle, so you tip your
telescope forwards.
Motion is relative, so it doesn't matter who is moving!
Also, I hate to tell you this, but centrifugal force does not
exist! because I am a scientist.
but in a GCSE or A level physics paper, if you
mention centrifugal force you get no marks!
What feels like centrifugal force when you go on the "cage" at a
fair, is really the outside wall pushing you inwards,
(I had no wall, I was standing on the edge, )
The only force is the seat pushing
you forwards to accelerate you to 300 mph, but it feels like a backward
force.
(Not my Inertia?)
There is no reason to question a theory which fits the facts
exactly. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Your simple triangle does not work, merely because the light from all the
stars is parallel when it hits the earth.
It would be at a certain angle, and would be in the
North. Now travel 100 miles west and look at the pole star again.
According to you, it would no longer be north because you'd have moved,
but in fact the rays are parallel to the original ones, so it would still
be north.
(chuckle....)
Yes, you're getting something wrong. Aberration is the parallel
light appearing to come from a different direction because we're moving
It's because it seems that only phycists will accept that centrifugal
force does not exist! It's easier to consider it does exist, because it
does seem to do so!
I have to tell that there is also a group of people who insist
that it is real!
I saw my brother this evening. He says that the aberration of
light proves that the earth moves. (Remember the analogy of having to hold
an umbrella tilted forward while walking throught the rain, because the
rain appears to come down at an angle to the vertical?)
He says that the amount of the aberration is due entirely to the
linear speed. If the stars are stationary, and the earth moving, the angle
of the aberration is the same for all stars.
If the earth were stationary and the stars moving round it, their
angular velocities would all be the same, but their linear velocities
would be different, because of their different distances. This would mean
that the aberration of light would be different for different stars,
depending on their distance.
I need hardly tell you, that the aberration of light is the same
for all stars!
Alan Griffin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 11:09 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Alan Griffin's "Proof of Rotation"
Dear All,
I was away on vacation for two weeks and missed many of Alan's postings,
including his ridiculous alien and this "proof of rotation." Could someone
therefore save me the trouble of looking back through the boards and simply
tell me what Alan's idea was?
Seeing whether silent members of this forum are still alive (well,
physically at least) does appeal to me, but they are perfectly entitled to
just listen in if they want.
Philip's comment that he was starting to question NASA encouraged me, and
his postings regarding the first chapter of Genesis reminded me of research
I was doing myself there about six or seven months ago. So I've updated the
website
www.midclyth.supanet.com
with a new subsection, "NASA," and two new pages, "Biblical cosmology" and
"Solar eclipse from the Moon?"
These have no buttons yet, though, so you have to access them via the home
page.
Comments/suggestions warmly welcomed, once yo0u've had a chance to read
them.
Neville.
"Gary L. Shelton" <GaryLShelton@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In August, before I became aware of this list, a fellow named Alan Griffin
posted his "Proof of Rotation" on this list. Alan was in the very same vein
as Rob Glover, that's easy enough to see, and also a very intelligent
person.
Of course I would naturally disagree with Alan on just about everything, but
I am interested in learning from these type of people. (How are they
attracted to this list anyway?)
Therefore, if Alan makes an astounding claim such as "Proof of Rotation",
I'm very interested in seeing the appropriate counter to it.
I, however, have no arrows when it comes to his "proof" subject of the
aberration of light. Is there a link or post that someone can provide which
refutes this claim?
In geostasis,
Gary
GaryLShelton@xxxxxxxxxxx
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
Other related posts:
